The Gospel of Judas?
In the news lately has been the
translation of the only known copy of the The Gospel of Judas. This 3rd-4th
century manuscript copy describes Jesus' private relationship with Judas, who is
requested by Jesus to turn Him over to the Romans so He can be sacrificed.
Today's New York Times headline for the news of the translation and publication
into English of this ancient parchment is "Jesus-Judas manuscript is genuine,
but is its story true?" Many other headlines reflect a similar way of
thinking.
What is
interesting is not so much the news, but how the news is reported. The
existence of the "Gospel of Judas" is not breaking news. It was referred to by
Irenaeus, a leading early church figure, in around 180 AD. He wrote of those
opposing the truth that "they believe that Judas the Betrayer was fully informed
of these things and that only he understanding the truth like no one else
fulfilled the secret of betrayal that confused all things, both in heaven and on
earth. They invented their own history called the Gospel of Judas." So the
knowledge of this work and its message is quite
ancient.
Interestingly, the
reporting places into question the truthfulness of the work but assumes as fact
the genuineness. It is not too difficult to dismiss the truthfulness of the
work given that it was written over 100 years after the crucifixion, that its
source was from a heretical sect, and most importantly, that it is in direct
conflict with the writings of the New
Testament.
Can we accept
its genuineness? The parchment was found in the Egyptian desert in the 1970's
and has been dated by radiometric methods as from around 300 AD. It was written
in Coptic and is assumed to be a translation from Greek. Is it genuine in the
sense that it actually exists? Certainly, but this is no headline. Is it
genuine in the sense that it is free from dishonesty and is sincere? This is
the question of truthfulness, of which there are few real advocates. Those who
are sympathetic with the work will go only so far as suggesting that its
truthfulness is plausible, stopping short of actually declaring it so. Surely,
genuineness is in reference to its
authenticity.
In news
reports of the Judas Gospel, authenticity is not raised as an issue. It is
impossible to determine how accurate the translation is since there are no
copies of the original language. It is impossible to determine how accurately
the parchment represents the original since there are no other copies to even
compare it to. It is possible that this document is only claiming to be the
Gospel of Judas and is not
authentic.
Why is this line
of questioning not posed? Because, as with other works, the author is given the
benefit of the doubt. Unless there is reason to believe deceit or corruption
has occurred, sincerity is assumed. Why is the Bible not afforded the same
benefit by many religious scholars? Given that thousands of New Testament Greek
manuscripts exist, and thousands more ancient New Testament translations exist,
there is far more reason to consider our New Testament to be an authentic
representation of the original text. When will the headline in the New York
Times read "New Testament is genuine but is its story true?"
The best quote in the article comes from Ms.
Elaine Pagels, a religion professor at Princeton University, who is quoted as
saying the discoveries of the Gospel of Judas and other Gnostic texts were
"exploding the myth of a monolithic Christianity." Ms. Pagels must assume that
Gnosticism is part of Christianity! True Christianity has always been opposed
by false teaching, as the New Testament itself gives ample evidence. That one
more opposing work is published does nothing to show the diversity of
Christianity.
We would be remiss not to
note that Ms. Pagels teaches at a university that one hundred years ago was the
flagship school for those who defended the integrity, inerrancy and authority of
the Bible. My how times have
changed.
The early church suffered from
those who sought to call into question the truth of God's Word. While many
things have changed, in some ways they have stayed the same, only with a bit
more technology.
Posted: Fri - April 7, 2006 at 01:53 PM